That’s only partly true. In the wake of the 1986 reform, liberal groups tried to defang the enforcement measures. That kept it an issue. The bill that eventually passes, and one will eventually pass, will have strong enforcement measures and triggers. Democrats will call for the triggers to be bypassed, and the most conservative Republicans will insist they be enforced.
That in itself isn’t a problem for Republicans. The public favors enforcement first. The problem is Tom Tancredo types who as you put it, are mean to brown people. Which won’t go away, because the immigration bill doesn’t solve the problem or even come close. It still leaves 5 million illegals after ten years.
It’ll be a trend when a white Democrat wins 70% of the Hispanic vote. Two elections, both with the same guy at the top of the ticket, do not a trend make. I do not believe that immigration has suddenly become a big issue for Hispanic voters since 2008, and the polls bear that out. It could very well be that when the economy is poor, Hispanic voters turn to Democrats. When the economy is good, it could be that they focus more on social issues like faith issues. GWB was an overtly Christian candidate and Hispanic voters might have picked up on that given the economy was okay in 2004.
That’s just hypothesizing though. We’ll know more in 2014 and 2016. Democrats seem sure that Hispanic voters will punish Republicans in those two elections, so let’s find out.
No, i think Boehner will break the Hastert rule on the conference bill and immigration reform will pass. IMHO just removing the issue from the table helps Republicans. Obama promised immigration reform during both elections and you think Hispanics voted for him because he is black?
No, I think they voted for him for the reason they said they voted: for the economy. Hispanic voters have a pro-government bent when it comes to economic issues, so a poor economy will tend to make them vote Democrat.
I could be wrong, but I do know it wasn’t immigration. Maybe Hispanics just don’t like Mormons. Mormons don’t poll well and it’s not just evangelicals that don’t like them.
DigitalC, I think you’re sorta right. I think that Boehner will break the Hastert rule(which isn’t really a rule), but only if the Republicans don’t pass anything. If the Republicans pass their own immigration bill or bills, then that’s what the House will pass and the Senate will have to compromise with that.
And thank you for showing all that you paid absolutely no attention for what I said, talk indeed about not figuring out why you and your guys lost.
What I said was that we favor both enforcement and legalization, it is a good chuck brain damaged republicans in the House that have no intelligence enough to show that walking and chewing gum at the same time is possible and recommended.
Humanitarianism, the economy, and social progress are my big three.
Does it not bother you that we have a subset of people in America that are forced to live on the fringes of society? That they could meaningfully contribute so much more? Or is all about politics? Not only is it a good idea, it’s the right thing to do.
That would be fine if this was 1986. But pro-reformers lied then, why should they be trusted now? As a matter of fact, Americans don’t trust them now. Thus the call for enforcement first, even among Hispanic voters.
Most of us favor legalization, but only as part of an effort to fix the system so that we don’t have waves of illegal immigration again. If we’re going to get illegal immigration in the millions whether we fix the system or not, then that means the brokenness of the system isn’t the problem. Enforcement is.
This isn’t politics, it’s basic respect for the law. The “self-deportation” comment was revealing. It didn’t reveal anything about Mitt Romney, it revealed the mindset of liberal Americans. What is self-deportation? Obeying the law! If expecting illegal entrants to obey the law and leave is some horrible thing, then Democrats should come right out and support open borders.
Why don’t they do that? Because they’d be a minority party. So the lying continues.
If someone’s solution for the problem of people stealing bread to feed their children is “self-control! You should respect the law of bread ownership!” that would be revealing. If people objected to such a solution for the simplistic, unhelpful ignorance of it, that wouldn’t mean they wanted to do away with bread or bread ownership. And it wouldn’t be lying for them to say so.
And thank you for showing all how dishonest are your points, that poll you posted is a year old, and it is not hard to find more recent ones, you only show how hard to the right your bubble of information is.
I disagree. If you’re advocating non-punishment for bread thieves, and in fact think it’s immoral to expect them to stop stealing bread, you are in effect calling for a free-for-all on bread.
Let me turn this thing around. Wouldn’t a tax amnesty be humanitarian? Is there a reason why we shouldn’t support a tax amnesty in which delinquent taxpayers are all forgiven?
No, you are saying that waving your hands and “solving” the problem by demanding people abide by the law is a stupid, ignorant, narrow-minded, ridiculous, foolish, and obstinate way to solve hunger.
I reject tax amnesty as “humanitarian” so the analogy is not one I’m going to bother working with.
Let me turn this thing around again too – whether or not it is moral to expect parents with starving children not to steal bread, it is certainly stupid, so why not feed their children, instead of punishing them? I think this is, for liberals, why Republicans sound, not “upright and responsible” but stupid, as well as cruel, vindictive, cold-hearted, mean, and securely wedded to the idea of punishing people for being poor, punishing people for being hungry, punishing people for being a different color or gender than them, basically their answer to every social ill is punishment. Doesn’t matter if it worsens the problem. Punishment is their one-whip-fits-all.
Why wouldn’t it be? People struggle financially and fall behind on their taxes all the time.
Okay, I agree with you on just expecting people to follow the law, but expecting people to is not a bad thing, and in Romney’s case it was portrayed as a horrible thing to say. Whereas “people need to voluntarily pay their own taxes” is uncontroversial.